Preflop confusion

[J_V]

Here is a hand many would consider boring. Yet when I asked two of the best limit holdem players I know, I got two completely different answers.

And aggressive but fairly tight player (no stats) raises UTG+3 (i would guess (22 12 2). Everyone folds to you in the small blind and you see 99.

The big blind is a big fish very very capable of calling two more bets. He has stats of (56 13 1). What is your best option?

One player said calling was definitely an option. Another player said calling sucked bad. Both players beat every game under the sun. Is it close?


The rest of the hand was interesting to me and I'll post it later in a separate thread. I'm considered right now about preflop play.

[DeeJ]

Well I would say raise for value because if the fish comes along, fine, if he doesn't, that's fine too. 99 is tough to play with 2 or more overcards with 3 players in, but it's still a good hand.

[nokia1566]

I call because I want the fish in the pot.

[J_V]

Is it really ok if the fish comes along? Now you are going to be out of position in a 3 way pot against a possibly better hand.

This raiser also happens to cap a wide range of hands too but that is a side collarly.

Let's say the fish will play his top 35% of hands, would you rather have him in or out and how close is it?

[Boris]

Good question. If the big fish tends to go off after the flop for lots of bets and play aggressively, I would call. If he is more passive then 3 bet and pray for a sweet flop.

[mdeck]

I could b ewrong, I think if the fish doesn't get out of line too often, wouldn't the presence of the fish help in that the third player in the pot keeps the TAG from exploiting his positional advantage?

The presence of the third player should make the TAG play more straightforwardly and therefore make it easier to determine when you are and aren't good with a middle pair like 99.

Now assuming having the third player is a good thing considering position and the likelihood of overcards coming out on the board, I'm torn between 3betting and just calling. Does the equity you gain when the fish cold calls your 3bet outweigh the presumed lost value when the fish folds to your 3bet and you go heads up with the TAG OOP (and in bad shape if he caps)?

[Peter_rus]

I'd raise here regardless profile of BB.

According to PokerStove, your equity vs the top 12% hand range is about 50%. However, his raise comes from early position, so we can expect our equity to be slightly below 50%.

The BB, who so far, holds a random hand, given that he plays a random hand, has an equity of about 19%. If he calls and comes in for two bets, he adds 0,86 BB in value to the pot. If he folds, he adds 1 SB in value. Now if we assuem that he calls two cold with the top 50% of hands(he is very loose) he would add about 1 SB in value as well.

Thus pre-flop equity alone does point towards 3-betting.

In addtion to that, since we hold a hand like 99, the implied odds are in most cases against us as there is some chance that BB can get away from trash but earn extra bets when he does hit. We, with 99, are in constant danger of misplaying, i.e. calling down a beaten hand or folding a winner in a 3-way situation.

Also, there is the issue of initiative. Say we 3-bet pre-flop, the BB folds, the UTG+3 calls and happens to hold something like TT and the flop comes down AK2. If we bet, we can often take away the pot with the worse hand. However, if the BB is in the hand as well, then we will have a very hard time achieving this.

For the reasons outlined above, I therefore recommend 3-betting.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
The presence of the third player should make the TAG play more straightforwardly and therefore make it easier to determine when you are and aren't good with a middle pair like 99.

[/ QUOTE ]

This concept is discussed in TOP and or HPFAP. I would be very careful when applying it in practice, at least with regards to B&M California games. What happens in real life is that the tight player will think along these lines:

"Hmmmmm... this live one will call me with anything and there's another good player in the pot. I think I'll bet my second pair or naked ace in the hopes that the good player will fold."

[J_V]

Wow, I'm not sure which Poker Cave you just came out of, but nicely done. I'm gonna try and duplicate your analysis via PokerStove for practice, not that anyone might care. Knowledge is power and knowing is half the battle.

Thanks for the input.

[DeeJ]

I think with 99 it's got to be slightly better in value terms for the extra bet to be going in early. You may have the initiative after the flop, too, if there is an Ace it would be hard to call a bet for anyone without one (or a draw).

It is too complex to work out all likely/possible combinations of holdings and flops. Against the range stated I would certainly 3-bet, you can't have the fish calling cheap and picking up some random 2 pair....

[bicyclekick]

I've never known the 'correct play' in these spots and they don't come up that often and when they have sometimes I've raised, sometimes I've called, and if i recall I've folded a few times but it was a little earlier/tighter raiser or something.

[DeathDonkey]

This brings up something I wonder as a lurker here...which pocket pair is your (your = anyone who wants to answer) cutoff for playing in this pot at all. I think 99 has to be pretty close. Depending on what I thought of the preflop raiser's postflop skill, I think I would be folding 88 here and having a hard time deciding what to do with 99 and TT.

-DeathDonkey

[PassiveCaller]

.

Against this type of BB i like to call more often. Your 99 will play better against one opponent, but since the BB already has a couple chips in the pot he's not going anywhere a majority of the time when u 3 bet. That being said... i'm CRing the PFR on almost every flop.

TZ

[DcifrThs]

i agree w/ JV and stox.... i have no clue where you came from but you definately have a lot to add.

note to TEX: you pmed me asking why you were met with such hostility in the forum and concluded it was because you were new. i pointed you towards lestat's entrance and we now have another data point. the above new poster within his first 10 posts provided excellent analysis and i sincerely hope he continues to post on this board. you came out "guns blazing" as you put it without any real knowledge yet assuming you were very good at poker. tempus hasn't said anything except the analysis he/she puts forth. and its very good analysis. see the difference?

onto the analysis at hand:

one thing you left out, tempus, is that if you call, you will be able to leverage your relative position very well.

22/12/2 (very aggressive postflop fairly tight preflop and aggressive preflop) is going to bet near 100% of the flops that come down.

JV is OOP here and calling gives him relative positional power as an option. i think this is close as 88 for me is a call and TT (what i thought was an easy) 3bet. (i like to compare similar hands in the same spot and see how close the decision is). given your pokerstove analysis TT is indeed a 3 bet and 88 indeed a call.

but the fact that PFraiser has position and the fact that you are putting in 3 bets here and likely betting most flops, you have to factor into the equation the expected gain/loss of one sb that you put out there on the flop. when you call, you gain/lose fewer sbs so if this is a close spot, it doesn't matter a whole lot but does add a lot to variance if you 3 bet, especially if its capped by PFraiser (who would then have initiative AND position...very dangerous indeed)

if this was live and a 5 bet cap, a 3bet mitigates the above b/c the PFraiser would now be more hesitant to 4bet w/o a hand that beats you or is very very strong against you (KK/QQ/AK) /b/c it may come back to him for yet another bet.

its also VERY important to factor in the PFraiser's postflop agression. if he is very aggressive postflop you may end up making large postflop mistakes (folding the best hand or calling/betting w/ very few outs). how will you react when you get raised on the flop w/ an overcard and a flush draw out there when the bb called pf and called your flop continuation bet? its tough, but you'll mostly fold and its the PFraiser that has used the bb's presence in the pot to manipulate you out of it if he didn't have you beat.

further, you have to look at the possible turn action.

if you bet and are called, and we know PFraiser is aggressive, he may raise a turn when he's behind you for a free showdown forcing you into yet another tough decision.

this post by JV is very good b/c im not sure the people he asked took ALL of this into account and getting it in writing helps all of us.

im sure there is more to this analysis but thats all i got off the top right now.

Barron

[Joe Tall]

To throw a wrench in the 3-betting camp for the sake of discussion:

Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot? EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU w/a c/r and take it down with a turn bet?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
To throw a wrench in the 3-betting camp for the sake of discussion:

Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot as EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU and take it down with a turn bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

yup.

[ QUOTE ]
one thing you left out, tempus, is that if you call, you will be able to leverage your relative position very well.

22/12/2 (very aggressive postflop fairly tight preflop and aggressive preflop) is going to bet near 100% of the flops that come down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Barron

[Paluka]

I think just calling and 3 betting is close. I do not consider folding because calling and getting a 3 way pot with one donk involved seems too good to pass up.
The reasons to call are similar to the reasons why I sometimes cold call from the small blind when the button open raises. I want to give the big blind a chance to play badly if he will call with complete trash and my hand plays decent multiway (I don't mean to imply I would coldcall with 99 if it were a button raise, of course) I think having a third guy in the hand who plays badly makes it possible to get more out of the set value for my hand, and also makes it less likely that I fold a winner because the PFR has to play more straightforward with a third guy in the hand.
I think this would be a good spot to cold call preflop, but then bet just about any flop with only one overcard. There is a good shot the fishy big blind will peel on a lot of flops with marginal holdings, and now the pfr will have a difficult time continuing the hand against 2 opponents without a solid holding, making it unlikely you will be moved off a winner.

[PassiveCaller]

I don't see how calling is making him "play badly". Even some of the worst hands he'll call with aren't really playing that badly (think of magnitude of error) calling one in the BB, while if they call 2 they are playing badly.

You're only making a set 1 in 7.5 times, if you're playing for set value here and think you're behind this changes everything while otherwise (if you are ahead which you'll rate to be) you'll be giving up more equity then UTG in most situations by letting the BB in even with as little as 72o.

[Glenn]

This is a style issue. Every successful holdem player can adapt situationally, but also has a prefered default style. Some are pounders, some are floaters. It's like how some people learn by reading and some learn by listening. The correct play is the one that fits your style. That is, the one that puts you in a position to gain the most information and execute your prefered plan based on your own strengths and weaknesses. At this level, it's more about creating situations where you are comforatable and your opponenet is uncomfortable than it is about simulated EV and such.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how calling is making him "play badly". Even some of the worst hands he'll call with aren't really playing that badly (think of magnitude of error) calling one in the BB, while if they call 2 they are playing badly.

You're only making a set 1 in 7.5 times, if you're playing for set value here and think you're behind this changes everything while otherwise (if you are ahead which you'll rate to be) you'll be giving up more equity then UTG in most situations by letting the BB in even with as little as 72o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of him playing badly is because he is supposed to be a bad player. I like to get him involved, because he will make substantial postflop errors. I think these are more likely than him calling 3 bets preflop in general. I guess if he calls 3 bets just as easily as 2, then jamming preflop is better.
I'm not surprised that this situation caused some differences in opinion. This is one of the toughest spots in limit holdem. If you make the big blind a reasonable player instead of a bad one, and I'd be surprised if there was a huge difference between folding, calling and reraising preflop.

[PassiveCaller]

I guess I'm not seeing these huge situations where the bad player overly spews (except the times we flop a set and 3-betting could even disguise this further) outweighing the equity given up to almost any hand in the BB. We only have a pair of 9s out of position and while sometimes we'll make better reads with 3 players we'll also sometimes end up giving more free cards to beat us when they don't cooperate and have a larger collective pool of outs to beat us cheaply.

Do I really want KT/KJ/QJ or anything like that calling here for 1 bet and rightfully so. Any two overcards give us a sizeable equity hit here and we'll lose more equity then AQ/KQ/AK in those situations by the hand calling. In that case we actually fall behind. In another instance 2 suited cards calling we lose a lot more equity then the AK(though we stay ahead).

Edit: Your argument is interesting for slowplaying AA or KK in this situation sometimes in my mind more then 99 or if we think there is a stronger chance we are behind for some reason but still rate to be ahead. (So perhaps 88)

[Tommy Angelo]

"One player said calling was definitely an option. Another player said calling sucked bad. Both players beat every game under the sun."

This does not surprise me. The conclusion to draw isn't that calling gets the same value as raising. It's that calling followed by playing good gets the same value as raising followed by playing good.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
"One player said calling was definitely an option. Another player said calling sucked bad. Both players beat every game under the sun."

This does not surprise me. The conclusion to draw isn't that calling gets the same value as raising. It's that calling followed by playing good gets the same value as raising followed by playing good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you. I think it more shows that playing this spot isn't definetive in what makes a good player a good player in that the EV's are close enough and the situation doesn't come up enough for it to greatly impact ones winrate.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"One player said calling was definitely an option. Another player said calling sucked bad. Both players beat every game under the sun."

This does not surprise me. The conclusion to draw isn't that calling gets the same value as raising. It's that calling followed by playing good gets the same value as raising followed by playing good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you. I think it more shows that playing this spot isn't definetive in what makes a good player a good player in that the EV's are close enough and the situation doesn't come up enough for it to greatly impact ones winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PassiveCaller]

I had a response typed up vehemetly disagreeing with the fact that calling w/good play would be the same as raising w/good play. But after writing and writing it just didn't seem to matter that much.

Poker isn't played in a vacuum, there's a hand, and a hand after... And a perfectly playing robot isn't playing the hand....

Perhaps seemingly ancilliary reasons are more important here then whether you call or raise.

If anything Tommy you're proof that a good/great winning player doesn't have to raise here but that doesn't mean that the values are equal. If there's anything to learn it's situations like these don't make winners, maybe if you're already at a state of greatness you could analyze these to death and find the most optimal play because there always is one. There'll be some difference it'll change your variance it'll be better or worse in some situations... Your decision here probably won't make you a winner or even effect your winrate that much.

No, no it won't. It's something else, something else it's time for me to focus on because it's the most important thing in poker and my results show it.

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
(i like to compare similar hands in the same spot and see how close the decision is). given your pokerstove analysis TT is indeed a 3 bet and 88 indeed a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also like to compare similar hands or similar flops and see where one play turns into another. Could you explain why TempusFugit's analysis means 88 is a call? It seems to me that the higher the pair, the more good flops, the more justification there is for giving the BB a chance to get in the action and to play a pot with him in as well.

Calling with the medium pairs before the flop is less attractive. The lower the pair the more important initiative becomes so you can take down boards on the flop or turn where UTG+3 misses but the flop would be too scary to put action in as a caller, with a smaller pot to boot.

The other issue that TempusFugit brings up, that the implied odds are against us, also suggests that if we play the medium pairs we need to be 3-betting them. On many of the boards where we have the best hand it will be unclear to us and that plus our poor position means our opponent will be value betting more effectively than we are and we may end up laying down the best hand. It is better to get the value in when we have our best shot at it. Sure it's possible for UTG+3 to take some pots away from us when we 3-bet and BB calls but I would guess that we lose even more boards when we call and the BB comes in a higher % of the time and we are often looking to dodge 3+ overcards instead of 2.

I also don't see how calling in the SB gives you "relative positional power". Yes, you act after the pf raiser who likely auto bets the flop but before the BB, making it difficult to trap him into a mistake even when you make a big hand. The BB has to call two cold at some point or you have to play very passively. This alone makes calling before the flop with any pair less appealing. We are not going to get that much value out of the BB no matter how bad he plays with a mediocre hand that will rarely improve on uncertain boards when he is last to act after the likely flop bettor.

I understand that the equity analysis may suggest calling with pairs lower than 99 but the other reasons given push our play to a raise if we are going to get involved. I know J_V has said many times that a raise or fold situation is rarely the case but I think hands like 88 and 77 in this spot would be an example.

regards,

raisins

P.S. I also see this situation as different from calling in the SB when there is a CO/Button raise. You are facing a much wider hand range in the steal and your opponent is placing you on a wide hand range as well. The benefit of having a third player in to get a more honest reaction from the LP player is not as important as in J_V's hand.

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
Have we considered the times that just calling allows us to c/r the BB out of the pot? EP will likely contiuation bet as we also know he'll likely miss and we get it HU w/a c/r and take it down with a turn bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this, along with managing a pot size, makes all the argument in the world for calling. 99 is simply not suited to win a big pot from the SB without a set. By 3-betting, you're setting yourself in a position where you'll rarely get to offer either player worse than 7:1 odds to draw out on you. With 99 in the SB, I start getting vague ideas of trying to win this pot by the turn.

[andyfox]

Many opponents will call almost without thinking on a raggedy flop with just overcards when there is no 3-bet preflop. But they will just as easily fold when there was a preflop 3-bet. It's not what they should do, given the pot size and the fact that you're more likely to not be helped by a raggedy flop when you 3-bet, but it's what happens often enough. So yes, you offer better pot odds in theory to be drawn out on by 3-betting, but in pratice, the 3-bet may "buy" you the pot.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i like to compare similar hands in the same spot and see how close the decision is). given your pokerstove analysis TT is indeed a 3 bet and 88 indeed a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also like to compare similar hands or similar flops and see where one play turns into another. Could you explain why TempusFugit's analysis means 88 is a call? It seems to me that the higher the pair, the more good flops, the more justification there is for giving the BB a chance to get in the action and to play a pot with him in as well.

Calling with the medium pairs before the flop is less attractive. The lower the pair the more important initiative becomes so you can take down boards on the flop or turn where UTG+3 misses but the flop would be too scary to put action in as a caller, with a smaller pot to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

tempus's analysis didn't lead me to conclude 88 is a call for me. the fact i call with it here is a result of experience and previous analysis.

you dont want to be put in tough situations postflop if you can be ahead. w/ 88, preserving relative position is more important than getting UTG to fold when he's ahead b/c theres so many overcards that can come to 88 that when you lead you really can't call a raise even if he's raising w/ 99...you're still behind and you dont know he has 99 (for example)

further, your statement about the lower the pair the more important initiative is clearly intuitively flawed. at some point its too likely you are either way way way behind or slightly ahead like w/ 22. so you say that you'd rather call w/ AA and 3 bet w/ 22...that cannot possibly be maximizing EV. in fact, if i were to model how to give up the most EV with pocket pairs in the blinds it might look something like that, raise lower pairs call bigger pairs.

and getting the bb out isn't as important w/ 88 because UTG has position on you and him, you can c'r favorable flops and eliminate the bb there or force him to pay.

[ QUOTE ]

The other issue that TempusFugit brings up, that the implied odds are against us, also suggests that if we play the medium pairs we need to be 3-betting them. On many of the boards where we have the best hand it will be unclear to us and that plus our poor position means our opponent will be value betting more effectively than we are and we may end up laying down the best hand. It is better to get the value in when we have our best shot at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is a myopic view of poker. this is a 4 street game. bloating the pot on the first street with a hand that can stand virtually no action on a vast majority of flops will force you into costly errors later.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure it's possible for UTG+3 to take some pots away from us when we 3-bet and BB calls but I would guess that we lose even more boards when we call and the BB comes in a higher % of the time and we are often looking to dodge 3+ overcards instead of 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the fact remains you are going to be putting out that continuation bet on ALL flops if you intend to make UTG fold a better hand. so you 3 bet 88 flop comes Ah7hQc. you bet and get raised. even if you have the 8h, thats too scary a flop for you and he can easily have something like KJhh etc. where you are ahead but only barely now and will likely lose by the river so you have to fold. similarly, AQ on a KT3hh board will raise and force you to fold. same with KQ on JT2. even AK will raise QT2 and you're still in trouble even IF you get the bb out. dodging overcards isn't the predominant reason to raise.

[ QUOTE ]

I also don't see how calling in the SB gives you "relative positional power". Yes, you act after the pf raiser who likely auto bets the flop but before the BB, making it difficult to trap him into a mistake even when you make a big hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

i bet out on flops witha big hand like set of 8s and good draws with hands i call in the sb. you can there make good money if UTG raises after bb calls and then 3 bet to force large mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]

The BB has to call two cold at some point or you have to play very passively.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain this.

[ QUOTE ]

This alone makes calling before the flop with any pair less appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

[ QUOTE ]

We are not going to get that much value out of the BB no matter how bad he plays with a mediocre hand that will rarely improve on uncertain boards when he is last to act after the likely flop bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, either im missing something or this doesn't make intuitive sense. if bb plays poorly with hands that will rarely improve on boards that are favorable to us that is EXACTLY how we make lots of money.

[ QUOTE ]

I understand that the equity analysis may suggest calling with pairs lower than 99 but the other reasons given push our play to a raise if we are going to get involved. I know J_V has said many times that a raise or fold situation is rarely the case but I think hands like 88 and 77 in this spot would be an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

3betting a UTG raise with 88 and 77 is a losing play in a vast majority of cases assuming UTG is a TAG.

[ QUOTE ]

regards,

raisins

P.S. I also see this situation as different from calling in the SB when there is a CO/Button raise. You are facing a much wider hand range in the steal and your opponent is placing you on a wide hand range as well. The benefit of having a third player in to get a more honest reaction from the LP player is not as important as in J_V's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

im way more likely to 3 bet a CO/BU raise with 88/77 than a UTG raise with the same hands holding the raising player and bb constant.

Barron

[raisins]

Thank you for the detailed response, there's a lot to think about.

[ QUOTE ]
further, your statement about the lower the pair the more important initiative is clearly intuitively flawed. at some point its too likely you are either way way way behind or slightly ahead like w/ 22. so you say that you'd rather call w/ AA and 3 bet w/ 22...that cannot possibly be maximizing EV. in fact, if i were to model how to give up the most EV with pocket pairs in the blinds it might look something like that, raise lower pairs call bigger pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it would be ridiculous to 3-bet all the small pairs and to call the big pairs in this spot. At some point, the pairs are no longer going to be profitable to play no matter if you call or raise. I don't know where that line is, but I would fold 66 and lower and maybe 77 too. My point was more that of the pairs you are going to play the lower end of that range plays better with a raise. If a loose bad BB makes you consider calling in order to get him involved then I think the larger pairs would be better choices than the medium pairs. I'm not sure that I would call with any of them though, because the higher pairs lose a lot of equity from not taking the clear 3-bet and the loose BB will apparently call 2 sb with a large ratio of the hands that he would call 1 with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The BB has to call two cold at some point or you have to play very passively.

[/ QUOTE ] please explain this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am completely wrong here, I wrote this without much thought. Obviously there are several lines we can take with strong hands where we bet out on the flop or turn and confront BB with only 1 bet. I was mostly thinking of dealing with UTG+3 as the aggressor since he is marked with a hand and has PF initiative if we don't 3-bet, and any raise off of his action is 2 bets to the BB.

[ QUOTE ]
you dont want to be put in tough situations postflop if you can be ahead. w/ 88, preserving relative position is more important than getting UTG to fold when he's ahead b/c theres so many overcards that can come to 88 that when you lead you really can't call a raise even if he's raising w/ 99...you're still behind and you dont know he has 99 (for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the issue. Isn't 99 much less likely to raise you when overcards come and you've 3-bet before the flop? A large part of the PF 3-bet is to get an honest reponse out of Villain. If 99 raises here and doesn't give you some credit on overcard flops plus you give up some of the scary boards where you're ahead to semi-bluffs (like the examples you gave) then sure there isn't much value to 3-betting. My opinion is that the 3-bet will drive out some of the better pairs on high card flop (or prevent you from folding the best hand) and get opponents to fold when they are drawing live on A and K flops and maybe some of the weaker Aces on rag boards and take back some of the equity you give up to the semi-bluffs. I don't know how to do the math to show this. I would be surprised if the extra sb does not bring in a positive return from taking down some of those high card boards while a call will have you conceding them regardless of what BB does. If I don't raise, flops I will give action to like one overcard and a two flush become trickier against two opponents and are tough for me to figure out where I'm at.

I know I haven't established a firm answer for my position but I still have some trouble seeing the benefits to calling with the botom of the range of pairs you play here is. I think you get blown off the best hand more often than a 3-bet and you give your opponent too many opportunities to take free cards or value bet you with marginal hands, like catching 2nd pair on the river. But perhaps the extra sb PF and the autobet on the flop, and a possible follow on the turn is too much exposure to make up for the extra boards it wins. I don't know, I'll keep thinking about it.

By the way, when I said this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are not going to get that much value out of the BB no matter how bad he plays with a mediocre hand that will rarely improve on uncertain boards when he is last to act after the likely flop bettor.

[/ QUOTE ] again, either im missing something or this doesn't make intuitive sense. if bb plays poorly with hands that will rarely improve on boards that are favorable to us that is EXACTLY how we make lots of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant we're the one with the mediocre hand on the uncertain board not the BB.

regards,

raisins

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
AQ on a KT3hh board will raise and force you to fold. same with KQ on JT2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all your other examples, but you wouldn't really fold 88 to a flop raise on a JT2 board in this situation, would you? Given that 3 bets went in preflop, I'm pretty inclined to get 88 to showdown here unless an A K or Q falls.